A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

I brought it up, only to say that it cannot bear the burden of free will. The reason I brought it up is that since we know the world works in a non-determinist way on quantum level, a lot of people say that determinism is not true, so we can have free will. That is wrong, and that was all I wanted to say here.

And if your Trick cannot see the difference between a coerced action and a free action, then his whole rant is worth nothing.

I can tell that you didn't read his blog post. He shows how the compatibilist definition keeps changing as people point out problems with it. I dare you to read it.

The Problem with Compatibilist Qualifiers -

Compatibilist Free Will Machine - Fake Ad

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can tell that you didn't read his blog post. He shows how the compatibilist definition keeps changing as people point out problems with it. I dare you to read it.

I dare you to answer my questions instead of being a dishonest and obnoxious twat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I dare you to answer my questions instead of being a dishonest and obnoxious twat.

I'm not interested in discussing this topic any more. And you better watch your foul mouth.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You didn't slog through all that stuff because you know that you will have met your match. Show me where he is wrong. You can't do it.


[/I]

You don't even know what he is talking about, you moron. How would you know whether I succeed or fail to show where he is wrong? You have no clue about anything he writes about. Like your father, you are an ignorant buffoon.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not interested in discussing this topic any more. And you better watch your foul mouth.

Or what? What exactly are you going to do about it that you aren't already doing?

Get rekt, biatch.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not interested in discussing this topic any more. And you better watch your foul mouth.

peacegirl to English translation: I'm not interested in discussing this topic anymore because I'm a dishonest and obnoxious twat. Also, I don't know jack shit about quantum mechanics, but I like what "Trick" Slattery wrote because his conclusion supports what I want to be true, whether it's true or not.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Or what? What exactly are you going to do about it that you aren't already doing?

Get rekt, biatch.

Welcome to 'pretend ignore island', grab a fishing rod, at least the fishing is good.

[Vivisectus]

That's not true Vivisectus. There are conditions that must be put into place before this principle will work otherwise it will be disastrous.

Why and how? If you just claim something, I have no way to check if I agree or not you see.

It's not the only thing that gives the capacity to do harm, but it is one of the things. He explains this very clearly. This again shows me that you have not STUDIED the book, and that is what is required. Is there any philosopher who has a place in history who was not carefully studied? Nooooooo.

The problem is you have, and you cannot tell me either why we should believe it. He keeps saying THAT it is so, but he never explains why we should believe it is true.

Because not being blamed changes a person's psychological response. But there are limits to this. If you hurt me, it is demanded by my nature to retaliate, therefore the conditions must be such that the first blow is removed.

That is what you claim about blame, without ever explaining why we should believe this. But that was not my question. My question was - why is a belief in un-free will necessary for this?

He explains exactly why the removal of blame has the desired psychological effect which cannot be achieved through blame and punishment. If you're not going to read the first three chapters, you will never understand what he's talking about and you will continue to ask the same questions over and over again.

Actually, he doesn't. You yourself admitted this: it is why you came up with the Astute Observation. You have the amazingly convenient amnesia when it comes to these things.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You don't even know what he is talking about, you moron. How would you know whether I succeed or fail to show where he is wrong? You have no clue about anything he writes about. Like your father, you are an ignorant buffoon.

What a dodge! If I don't understand I will ask questions, okay? So go for it. Explain to me where he is wrong. If you don't try it just shows me you're bluffing and that you really don't have a better explanation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I don't understand I will ask questions, okay?

I've asked questions. All you can do is dishonestly evade them like the mentally and morally incompetent moron that you are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why and how? If you just claim something, I have no way to check if I agree or not you see.

He was not making unsubstantiated claims. Do you even know what his observations were?[/quote]

It's not the only thing that gives the capacity to do harm, but it is one of the things. He explains this very clearly. This again shows me that you have not STUDIED the book, and that is what is required. Is there any philosopher who has a place in history who was not carefully studied?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nooooooo.

Exactly. Most well-known philosophers have been studied in great depth.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The problem is you have, and you cannot tell me either why we should believe it. He keeps saying THAT it is so, but he never explains why we should believe it is true.

Give me an example of this. Point to an excerpt in the book where he says that it is so, period, without an explanation as to why it is so.

Because not being blamed changes a person's psychological response. But there are limits to this. If you hurt me, it is demanded by my nature to retaliate, therefore the conditions must be such that the first blow is removed.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is what you claim about blame, without ever explaining why we should believe this. But that was not my question. My question was - why is a belief in un-free will necessary for this?

It's not. We could begin at a different starting point.

He explains exactly why the removal of blame has the desired psychological effect which cannot be achieved through blame and punishment. If you're not going to read the first three chapters, you will never understand what he's talking about and you will continue to ask the same questions over and over again.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, he doesn't. You yourself admitted this: it is why you came up with the Astute Observation. You have the amazingly convenient amnesia when it comes to these things.

Actually many things that we learn about are found through astute observation and the correct inferences that are made. Even though he didn't write down his data in a formal way, that doesn't mean his findings were insignificant. In fact, if you want to name his observation technique, you could compare it to a cross-sectional analysis.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've asked questions. All you can do is dishonestly evade them like the mentally and morally incompetent moron that you are.

I wasn't even talking to you. I was talking to David. I'm sick and tired of your disrespect. I told you that I'm not discussing his claim regarding the eyes any more. If you are so sure he was wrong, this should give you great comfort. Now go away.

[Vivisectus]

He was not making unsubstantiated claims. Do you even know what his observations were?

I was obviously talking about you.

Exactly. Most well-known philosophers have been studied in great depth.

Ermmm... you said that. Not me.

Give me an example of this. Point to an excerpt in the book where he says that it is so, period, without an explanation as to why it is so.

There is the famous part - is it in chapter 2 or 3? I think 2, near the end. Where he promises to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with mathematical certainty, that we cannot strike a first blow if we know we will not be blamed?

And then gets lost in his own woolly prose and forgets to do anything but claim that this is the case?

But hey - why not cut to the chase? Why not just tell me what the proof is?

It's not. We could begin at a different starting point.

Then you agree - it really is not terribly necessary.

Actually many things that we learn about are found through astute (or direct) observation. Even though he didn't write down his data in a formal way, it doesn't mean his findings weren't significant. In fact, if you want to name his observation technique, you could compare it to a cross-sectional analysis.

You could call it tiddly-winks of you want to: there is no way for us to check. Or to see if we agree with his conclusion. Or that he ever even observed anything. All we have is his say-so that he did a lot of important observing, and came to some conclusions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wasn't even talking to you. I was talking to David. I'm sick and tired of your disrespect. I told you that I'm not discussing his claim regarding the eyes any more. If you are so sure he was wrong, this should give you great comfort. Now go away.

Fuck you. You're a dishonest lying moron. You go away.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was not making unsubstantiated claims. Do you even know what his observations were?

Actually many things that we learn about are found through astute (or direct) observation. Even though he didn't write down his data in a formal way, it doesn't mean his findings weren't significant. In fact, if you want to name his observation technique, you could compare it to a cross-sectional analysis.

You're absolutely right, no-one knows what Lessans observations were because neither he nor you have ever told us what he observed or when. Any claim that is to be taken seriously will have all the data recorded for others to review and check against reality. Lessans didn't write anything down in a formal way because he was incapable of doing formal research and reasoning. He pulled everything out of his ass, and made claims based totally on fiction. Perhaps we should add cross-sectional analysis to the list of terms you don't understand.

Cross-sectional study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the article,

" is a type of observational study that involves the analysis of data collected from a population, or a representative subset, at one specific point in time"

Note they analyze data, that is collected and written down.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Fuck you. You're a dishonest lying moron. You go away.

Keep up the foul mouth. You've dug your own grave. I will not talk to you again. Bye.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I was obviously talking about you.

Ermmm... you said that. Not me.

There is the famous part - is it in chapter 2 or 3? I think 2, near the end. Where he promises to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with mathematical certainty, that we cannot strike a first blow if we know we will not be blamed?

And then gets lost in his own woolly prose and forgets to do anything but claim that this is the case?

But hey - why not cut to the chase? Why not just tell me what the proof is?

Then you agree - it really is not terribly necessary.

You could call it tiddly-winks of you want to: there is no way for us to check. Or to see if we agree with his conclusion. Or that he ever even observed anything. All we have is his say-so that he did a lot of important observing, and came to some conclusions.

I give up. Please read Trick Slattery's book. Maybe that will help you.

[peacegirl]

I love what Chandler Klebs wrote because it speaks to the necessity of rethinking old ideas:

"I'd argue that the only way for humans to progress is to educate people on the truth, and if they make wrong conclusions based on the truth (e.g. if studies show they do this), to educate them out of those wrong conclusions as well. Let's keep in mind that people are reactionary, especially when something new conflicts with their deeply embedded ideas. Progression and education take time."

[peacegirl]

dupe

[Vivisectus]

But it is so simple: just quote the part where he proves what he said he would prove, and that is all it takes! Or admit that whoops, you don't seem able to find it either. Two very simple, perfectly acceptable responses.

But you go for option 3: I do not have a clue, but I am actually quite deeply invested in these ideas, so I am not going to admit this, run away from this part of the discussion, and later on I will repeat the exact same things as if none of this ever happened.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But it is so simple: just quote the part where he proves what he said he would prove, and that is all it takes! Or admit that whoops, you don't seem able to find it either. Two very simple, perfectly acceptable responses.

But you go for option 3: I do not have a clue, but I am actually quite deeply invested in these ideas, so I am not going to admit this, run away from this part of the discussion, and later on I will repeat the exact same things as if none of this ever happened.

You don't think I've done that already? I've been here for over 4 years.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've been here for over 4 years.

Over 5 years, actually.

It was clearly time well spent, though.

show spoiler

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Keep up the foul mouth. You've dug your own grave. I will not talk to you again. Bye.

FYI, you not talking to someone is no loss at all, this was an empty threat.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't think I've done that already? I've been here for over 4 years.

And yet you never did. In fact you admitted it did not exist - it is why you insisted it was all an Astute Observation. Something of such truthiness that it required no further support.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump for Wundertard.